Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk

Nabil S, Kirk D, Ploetz T, Trueman J, Chatting D, Dereshev D, Olivier P.

Interioractive: Smart Materials in the Hands of Designers and Architects for

Designing Interactive Interiors. In: 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Designing

Interactive Systems (DIS '17). 2017, Edinburgh, UK: ACM.

Copyright:

© Nabil, S et al. ǁ ACM 2017. This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal

use. Not for redistribution. The definite version of record is due to be published by ACM.

DOI link to article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064745

Date deposited:

02/05/2017

Interioractive: Smart Materials in the Hands of Designersand Architects for Designing Interactive Interiors

Sara Nabil1, David S. Kirk2, Thomas Plötz3, Julie Trueman2,David Chatting1, Dmitry Dereshev2, Patrick Olivier1

1Open Lab, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne, UK

{s.nabil-ahmed2, david.chatting,patrick.olivier}@ncl.ac.uk

2Northumbria UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne, UK{david.kirk, julie.trueman,

dmitry.dereshev}@northumbria.ac.uk

3School of Interactive ComputingGeorgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA, USAthomas.ploetz@gatech.edu

ABSTRACTThe application of Organic User Interface (OUI) technologieswill revolutionize interior design, through the developmentof interactive and actuated surfaces, furnishings and deco-rative artefacts. However, to adequately explore these newdesign landscapes we must support multidisciplinary collabo-ration between Architects, Interior Designers and Technolo-gists. Herein, we present the results of two workshops, with atotal of 45 participants from the disciplines of Architecture andInterior Design, supported by a group of HCI researchers. Ourobjective was to study how design disciplines can productivelyengage with smart materials as a design resource using anevolving set of techniques to prototype new interactive interiorspaces. Our paper reports on our experiences across the twoworkshops and contributes an understanding of techniquesfor supporting multidisciplinary collaboration when designinginteractive interior spaces.

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m. Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI):Miscellaneous; J.5 Computer Applications: Arts & Humani-ties – Architecture

Author KeywordsOrganic User Interfaces; smart materials; e-textiles;Interactive Architecture; Interior Design.

INTRODUCTIONOver several centuries the architectural movements that haveimpacted our built environments have adopted varying levelsof reference to nature. It is not uncommon to see architecturalforms that try to mimic the flowing lines and natural refer-ences of the living environment. This was evident (arguably)in the gothic, baroque, rococo and art nouveau periods [36]and then more recently and literally in ‘Biophylic Design’.Since the art deco and modernist periods however, buildings

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACMmust be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish,to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or afee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.

DIS 2017, June 10-14, 2017, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

© 2017 ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4922-2/17/06. . . $15.00

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064745

have adopted increasingly abstract and metaphorically staticshapes. That is not to say however that buildings are staticand non-dynamic. As Brand [3] astutely illustrates buildingschange over time. They have a patina, that develops throughuse and they age ostensibly, through weathering and othereffects of time. It is also true to say that interiors, the artefactsand furnishings we have within our buildings, are moved, ageand are replaced over time, shaping a dynamic environmentwithin the buildings themselves [9]. However, these dynamicfeatures of buildings often sit outside of the temporal flowsthat make them readily perceivable to the average occupant.We are aware of change over time, but the time-scales at playoften mean we do not actively attend to it (beyond specificdemarcated points of transition). Within environmental psy-chology there has long been a discussion around the restorativebenefits of the natural environment, and concern for how thismight be installed within the built environment [18]. One areaof research Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [19] positsthat dynamic, moving and possibly interactive elements of thebuilt environment might support inhabitant well-being along anumber of dimensions. From this we believe that our built en-vironment should be designed to have the capacity for dynamicinteractive change, at a time scale that is more perceptible toinhabitants. Not only could our homes morph as we grow oldin them, and thus be more adaptable to our experiences andcomforts over a lifespan, but also be more responsive to ourdaily needs and moods.

Research already exists in the area of Interactive Architecture[6, 22] but with limited understanding of Interactive interi-ors that does not really address matters of interior design inmany kind of ways. However, deeper study and research forInteractive Interiors will help and support the vision of ubiqui-tous computing. In various ways researchers are beginning tothink about more dynamic and adaptable living and workingspaces [28, 14]. Organic User Interfaces (OUIs), including theuse of smart materials offer a rich potential to ‘retrofit’ [22]interactivity in to domestic artefacts and surfaces. OUIs aredefined as non-flat multi-touch interfaces that can exist in bothrigid or flexible forms, can take any shape, and can -activelyor passively- change this shape [35]. This kind of flexibleand dynamic sensing and actuation is more feasible and af-fordable than ever. Smart materials such as shape-changingalloys (SMAs), colour-changing paints (thermochromic pig-ments), conductive materials (conductive fabrics, conductive

Figure 1. Examples of Interactive Interiors: (Left) Light-Form [Daniele Gualeni Design Studio, 2010] [31], (Right) Engaging Retail Space [Dalziel &Pow, 2015] [7]. Images reproduced with permission.

paints, metal powders) and other flexible sensors all form aninteresting medium for embedding both actuation and sensingcapabilities into everyday objects and surfaces.

For the practical and aesthetic qualities of these materials to befully exploited within interior architecture and design however,the materials must be brought to the attention and understand-ing of those who work most prevalently in the design of thebuilt environment, namely architects and interior designers.To date however, there has been no significant explorationof how such communities can be supported in working withthese new kinds of new materials in interior design projects.Evidently, there is a need to understand the processes throughwhich designers can come to understand and work with suchsmart materials, in collaboration with technologists, if we wishto see visions of smart environments fully realised.

In this paper therefore, we discuss our study of inter-disciplinarity between HCI and Interior Design. We explorethe use of embedded smart materials to support new interac-tions in interior designs. In particular, we critically reflectupon our efforts to scaffold interior designers and architects,as two specific communities, learning to design with smartmaterials through hands-on exploration.

Below we first introduce some related work, which groundssome of our key understanding of interactive architectures andOUIs. We then unpack two case studies, as two workshopsconducted with architects then interior designers respectively,which brought them in to collaboration with an HCI team whoscaffolded their prototyping with new interactive materials,whilst designing novel interactive interior spaces. In each casewe were utilising techniques for supporting their exploration(with smart materials) of 4D interaction. We conclude thepaper with reflections on the process of supporting interiordesigners and architects to design with new materials and indoing so try to tackle some of the proposed challenges of In-teractive Architecture [22], namely Radical Interdisciplinarity,Appropriation and Retrofitting, and Scalability.

RELATED WORKInteractive Architecture that used shape-change as means ofreflection and interactivity with users has been subject to afew HCI studies [6, 22] and prototypes, such as ExoBuilding[32] a physiologically driven Adaptive Architecture prototype,the MuscleTower [24] another prototype of an interactive/proactive architectural structure and the Kinetic Interactive

Architecture [27] that explores bodily interactions with dif-ferent dynamic interior surfaces. But when we observe thedesign of any of these examples, we can’t seem to picturethem as architecture to live with. The interactivity, adaptiv-ity, and proactivity researchers introduced in these previousexamples were basically kinetic. Other research looked intothe possibilities of designing entire building facades as digitaldisplays [11, 33].

On the other hand, architects took kinetic and adaptive ar-chitecture to another level where scalability essentially trig-gers new forms of dynamic behaviours, capabilities and chal-lenges. The most basic type would be the Kinetic sun-shadefacades that take a variety of shapes and motion axes, from thevery early examples such as the Institut du Monde Arabe inParis (Jean Nouvel, 1987) [23] to the modern recent buildingssuch as the Kolding Building of SDU in Denmark (HenningLarsen Architects, 2014) [16], Al Bahr Towers in Abu Dhabi(Aedas Architects, 2012) [1], and the Kiefer Technic Show-room (Giselbrecht, 2010) [12]. Other kinetic architecturemay transform the entire structure such as the shape-changingHoberman’s Arch (Hoberman, 2004) [17]. Current Interac-tive Architecture - other than being kinetic - often includecolour-changing LED displays such as the Luminous Interac-tive Public Art Platform in Darling Quarter, Sydney [8].

A primary aspect of interior architecture is lighting and find-ing creative ways of manipulating lighting with other formsof kinetic actuations to realise user interaction. In interiordesign practice, interactive design firms are starting to createinteractive spaces to engage and react to users or the ambi-ent environment as well, using light and sound. Examplesof interactive interior designs are the Engaging Retail Space(Dalziel & Pow, 2015) [7] that responds to touch using capac-itive paint on wood wall panels and reacts through audiblesounds and projected graphical animations, and the AegisHyposurface kinetic wall (Mark Goulthorpe, 2000) [13] thatactuates its shape-changing mechanism either autonomously(pre-programmed) or responding to ambient sounds or noise.Other examples that involve LED interactivity are Light-Form(Francesca Rogers, 2010) [31] and the Philips Luminous Pat-terns [26]. More immersive experiences can be also foundin some novelists’ work such as Nicolas Schoffer’s Spatiody-namic Luminodynamic & Chromodynamic Space [34]. Allthese examples were designed and built to extend the userexperience in the space by pushing the boundaries and adding

a dynamic nature to the interior design instead of being juststatic as traditional designs (see Figure 1).

OUI materials leverage these possibilities from being me-chanical into organic in terms of the nature and effect of theactuation’s interaction and materialism. Such smart materialshave the physical changeable properties that are reversible andrepeatable, responding by changing their shape (morphogenic),skin texture, opacity or colour (chromogenic) or other mor-phological forms [29] reacting to external stimuli such asheat (thermo-), light (photo-), electricity (electro-), pressure,water/humidity (hydro-/hygro-), magnetism or chemical reac-tions [30]. Other smart materials may have sensing qualitiesrather than actuating ones. For example: conductive fabrics,conductive paints and flexible sensors that allow a range ofmanipulative and tactile sensing (from light touch to pressure)onto other normal materials. Previous research has lookedinto how OUI materials in Interactive Architecture can beused to create prototypes for both skin-changing OUIs suchas Morphing Lumina Architectural Skins [20], MorphogenicAdaptive Building Skins [2], and OUI Interiors such as the Liv-ingSurface [37], LivingWall [4] and the playful home interiorSqueeze [25].

Therefore, interactive interiors based on OUI smart materialshave great potential to create immersive enriched user expe-riences within interior spaces in a range of contexts. Somemay be designed as a conversation starter, for storytelling or tostand out from the crowd and/or overcome temporal blindness[5]; while others may be driven by the need to use technologyin a way that redefines the identity of the space or the servicebeing presented and practiced within. Other motivations forOUI interactive interiors includes visualizing the unseen [37],yielding pleasure [21] and uplifting emotions and feelings ofpeople through adding new dimensions to the spatial contextsuch as discoverability, revealing, playfulness and temporality.

EXPLORING INTERACTIVE INTERIORSOur review of related work identified two barriers to the trans-fer of research into practice. First, previous HCI research doesnot emphasize the ‘design’ of the prototypes, in large part dueto the computing approach that tends to frame the challengeas one of functional problem-solving nature that is primarilyconcerned with system performance. That is, an emphasison functionality and operational aspects of their design ratherthan the visceral and aesthetic qualities and values it createsand imposes. The second issue is that interactive interiorpractitioners are rarely concerned with deeper and long-termexaminations of how people will interact, perceive and livewith such designs for lifetime. Consequently, if we want toexplore the design space of different interactive spaces and un-wrap the potentials of smart materials in designing interactiveinteriors and objects, HCI researchers need to engage profes-sional interior designers and architects in a multi-disciplinaryexploratory process.

In our study we held two workshops with a total of 45 partici-pants from both disciplines: Architecture and Interior Design,together with a group of supporting HCI researchers to de-velop concepts and designs for interactive interior spaces. Our

objective was to get design disciplines to engage with andexplore smart materials using an evolving set of techniques.

INTERIORACTION: CASE STUDY 1The first case study was a hands-on workshop for a group ofarchitects to get them to experience interactive materials andexplore together ways of utilizing and embedding them intobuilding fabrics as a means for designing interactive interiorspaces, or as we term ‘interioractives’.

MethodThe first case study was with the School of Architecture, New-castle University, UK in which we had 9 participants (3 under-graduate students, and 6 postgraduates in different programs:MArch and MSc in Experimental Architecture) out of whichthere was 1 male and 8 females. The workshop was held overa full week and was located within our research lab, facili-tated by three researchers, and participants signed up willinglyas a part of a pre-teaching ‘Design Week’. The objectivewas to collaborate together in groups to ideate and designa interactive interior spaces. Participants were first briefedabout the concepts of OUI Architecture and interaction design,then introduced to an array of OUI materials (sensing andactuation) and controlling them using Arduino programming.Several group discussions and brainstorming sessions tookplace in between their learning sessions to allow them (and us)to evaluate, and critically reflect upon concepts of InteractiveInteriors. The smart materials used included shape-memorymuscle wires, thermochromic paints, conductive materials andflexible pressure and bend sensors. Participants had a goal todesign an interactive interior space that could potentially makeuse of these novel technologies.

Activity 1: Material ExplorationParticipants had the opportunity and time to not only examinethe smart materials but to use them in the form of well pre-pared kits by themselves. We introduced the basics of Arduinoelectronics and programming to facilitate their hands-on pro-totyping of different interactive OUIs. They wired differentcapacitive materials (fabric, thread, fibre, paint, ink and metals)and flexible pressure, tilt, squeeze, bend and stretch sensorsas input, and SMA (Shape-Memory Alloy) muscle wires andcontrollable heating pads for colour-changing thermochromicpaints as actuations/output.

Activity 2: IdeationAfter the exploring and playing with the materials, partici-pants were asked to work in groups discussing different appli-cations of sensing and actuating interior architectural spaceson four different categories: spaces, surfaces (walls, floors,ceilings, windows, etc), furniture, decoration and accessories.Eventually, few ideas were generated for both the ‘spaces’(the whole) and ‘accessories’ (the detailed), but rather partic-ipants focused on ‘structural surfaces’ and ‘furniture’. Theideation activity led to 39 different applications ranging fromthe simple obvious "window regulating indoor ventilation ac-cording to weather or pollution" to the creative and immersive"show warmest place in the house using thermochromic paint"or "lighting sculpture that glows more the more the WiFi-connected number of users in the building". We then analyzed

Figure 2. Visualization of data analysis of Case Study 1 Ideation Activityusing different dimensions: (a) Spatiality (x-axis), (b) Interaction Type(y-axis), (c) Engagement (diameter), and (d) purpose (colour).

these ideas to unwrap the inherited features and attributesthese applications incorporated. Their ideas were (unexpect-edly) equally distributed among three types of interaction: (1)Explicit Deliberate Interaction (hand manipulation i.e. touch,press, in-air gestures, speech control); (2) Implicit Motion (mo-tion: proximity/ moving around, posture: sitting down/ laying/standing, displacement: moving/dropping objects); (3) Am-bient and Autonomous: surrounding environment (weather:temperature/ humidity), ambient conditions (sound, light, time,heat) and based on external network feed.

We analyzed these ideas by coding key aspects of each idea/application according to the type of interaction, spatiality, en-gagement dimensions, purpose, legibility and re-adaptability.We rated the level of spatiality (over a spectrum from focusedto spatial to immersive) and the interaction type (from deliber-ate explicit control to implicit user actions to ambient condi-tions recognition and finally autonomous behaviour). We alsoconsidered the dimensions of user engagement as: 1D: linear,2D: planar, 2.5D: planar with an object, 3D: spatial/bodily,3.5D: building-scale, and 4D: adds the effect of temporality tothe 3D engagement. Then we identified the purpose of eachapplication to be either functional, experiential or aiming bothfunction and experience. The result of this analysis is shownin Figure 2 as plotted data points on scales of spatiality andinteraction, with the size indicating the dimensions of engage-ment, for functional (blue), experiential (red) and combined(purple) purposes. Through this approach we only intend tovisualize data in a meaningful way that shows the spectrum ona qualitative scale with no emphasis on any particular numeri-cal value so no quantitative rating is considered. As shown inFigure 2, we concluded these findings:

• The average dimension or level of engagement (size of cir-cles) of applications or ideas increases with the increase ofthe spatiality and/or the interaction getting less intentionali.e. implicit and ambient.

• The average dimension or level of engagement (size ofcircles) of applications or ideas that has both experiential

and functional purposes (purple) is larger than that of thoseintroducing functions only or experience only.

Activity 3: Design ChallengeThe whole group then moved from the lab to the wild, withthe aim of designing an interactive interior space, in a galleryroom around 6m x 4m. The resulting design concept was:creating a playful experience in the form of an ‘enchanted’interior, a cave-like dark room with hidden maze-like quali-ties, themed as ‘Alice in Wonderland’, and augmented withinteractive installations and clue(s) leading to the location of atreasure (a magical object). Based on the sensing and actuationtechniques they had learnt about, they split themselves intosmaller groups to design and build six interactive installationsto augment their interior walls with interactivity:

1. A tactile wallpaper/poster that used conductive fibre andpaint to display audio feedback for users playing with it.

2. A touch-sensitive wood wall-panel using capacitive paintmanipulating LED lights that shows an arrow for the rightway in the maze.

3. A 2D cardboard light switch based on conductive paint, thatactivated a far away lighting sign showing users what to donext.

4. A haunted/actuated curtain that moved flipping cut-outsusing SMA reacting to proximity sensing.

5. A hidden clue painted with thermochromic paint on a wallthat only revealed the invisible treasure code when a con-nected corresponding pressure-sensitive chair was sat on.

6. A treasure (i.e. actuated object) designed as a mushroommodel that activated (bounced cap using SMA wire andlights up LEDs) when a user entered the right code bydipping a finger in capacitive connected tea cups.

All designs were then installed and the room was opened forpublic visitors as part of a bigger architecture gallery event.

Data AnalysisOur gathered data consisted of 8 hours of audio data, recordedduring the workshops, to which we chose to perform selectiveaudio transcription of 2.5 hours that formed the entire length ofgroup discussions and presentations after each group activity.The collected data was also supplemented by participants’sketches, schematic architectural drawings, textual writtendescriptions of their ideas and designs, and most importantlyour observational notes made throughout the sessions.

During this workshop, we not only empowered these design-ers with brief knowledge on new frontier possibilities of dy-namic designs and embedded interactions, but we also hadthe opportunity to to; (1) investigate how they perceived OUIArchitecture; (2) examine their views on appropriation and ap-plicability; (3) unwrap new ideas and potentials of such OUIs;(4) discuss and raise new challenges and considerations; (5)design and implement six different interactive artefacts usingOUI smart materials; (6) create an Interactive Interior spacewith an enchanted theme; (7) capture visitors’ user experiences

with the OUI interior developed, and (8) observe user reac-tions and interaction behaviours of novice users (i.e. exhibitvisitors) with OUI artefacts.

FindingsThe results of our data analysis can be articulated in threemain themes, describing the unwrapped ideas, potentials andchallenges of interioractives. For anonymity, we refer to par-ticipants as P1 to P9.

Spatio-Autonomy & Context-AwarenessParticipants mainly ideated around different context-awarefunctional uses for interactive interiors, rather than their aes-thetics. For example, P4: "proximity activates lights leadingthe way to get somewhere", P4: "curtains change opacitywhether it was heated up or it was more brighter outside, thecurtains’ back would become more or less opaque so the spacewould be more comfortable inside" and P5: "if you walk by,chairs pop out so it reacts to you wanting to sit down." Otherfunctional purposes were also proposed for interioractive ob-jects such as furniture with context-aware ergonomics such asP3: "more comfortable furniture that shape your body", P6:"reading chair checks and regulates the surrounding ambientlights" and furniture responding to noise in the space or sup-porting space comfort: P5: "chairs would heat up or becomemore comfortable and soft the colder you are and then alsoget rather sturdy and colder if you’re too hot". Throughout thesessions, we observed how designers started thinking of andreferring to interior objects as living things that have mindsof their own e.g. P6: "when bins feel full they can tell us theyneed to be put out at the night before", P6: "plant pot thatmoves to stay in the sun".

Playfulness vs. CalmnessTemporarily Playful: participants expressed how they feelinterioraction can be more appropriate for non-permanent in-stallations (e.g. museum seasonal exhibits, shows, touristsculptures/ attractions, retail stores, temporary entertainment).For instance, P2: "a lot of this is about the novelty, it’s greatwhen you’ve never seen it before and it’s the first time, fantas-tic, but if that’s on your wall forever, it kinda loses its novelty."and P6: "it has to be things that are consistently useful ratherthan being sort of transiently entertaining". So for excitingengagement, sequential interaction was discussed. For ex-ample: P2: "you would touch something then it would tellyou something to do next and then that does something else,for example it lights up and when you touch it, it tells youto jump around then when you jump around something elsehappens." On the other hand, architects suggested residencesand permanent spaces should be designed with "calmness" inmind i.e. designing for permanent settings should be carefullyconsidered to avoid boredom and/or frustration through cre-ating hidden and/or calm interaction scenarios. Alternatively,participants pointed out how interior interaction can not onlybe pleasurable but provoking as means for promoting physi-ological wellbeing P1: "what else could get people moving,for example, if you sat too long on a seat it would get reallycold or really warm so that it would help you move like a littleprovocation somehow so not always pleasurable". Still, thedesign challenge showed how participants kept considering

these two paths as an interaction ‘double-edged sword’ wheredesigning a simple logic is too obvious, unimpressive andtherefore not quite playful, while the complicated scenariois unintuitive and often incomprehensible to users. At theend, however, they succeeded in designing their enchantedexhibition in a way where visitors were observably enjoyingthe playful experience, commenting how it was a "curious,"surprising" and a "wow" experience (see Figure 6). Although,unexpected user interaction behaviour for exhibit visitors wasnot uncommon, for example, some visitors were observedrepeatedly touching everything as if playing a musical beatwith interactive sounds and lights.

Design Constraints and LimitationsScalability issues bring limitations to some designs; P5: "prob-ably anything that is out in the rain but needs to be controlledby an electric current would become way more difficult toconstruct it and also would break much easier. Other aspectssuch as the expectations of users were also raised; P2: "youdon’t want to make people lazy, you still want them to want tointeract with things, but if everything is constantly being donefor you, if you have sensors that tell you what the weather islike outside", P6: "what if you want it to be brighter, what ifyou want to sit in the dark", P2: "when you want the designto stop being intuitive and for you to then as the user to takeover that". Designs were also constrained by the simple butdelicate materials that are quite easy to use/prototype but lackthe resilience required for a public installation, so careful con-siderations needed to be taken (e.g. transparent coating, tightfixing, soldering, etc.).

Critical ReflectionsCollaborating with architects yielded a productive frameworkto design interactive spaces. Architect participants success-fully: (1) understood how to use smart materials in their de-signs, (2) learnt basic programming and electronics essentialsto connect/ build their own circuits with sensors and actuators,(3) were able to design and create a playful theme of an in-teractive interior space in a sequential interaction approach,and (4) build an interactive space from raw materials of con-ductive and electronic products we provided. Although notstructurally dynamic or adaptive, the space they designed andconstructed was context-aware with embedded interactionswithin the walls, furniture (sensitive seat) and interior objects(enchanted treasure: cups and center piece) using Arduino mi-crocontrollers controlling motion sensors, tactile conductive,shape-changing and colour-changing materials. What sloweddown the design process at the beginning was their need tovisit and check the physical location, which wasn’t ready fromDay 1. We have learnt how the site visit is a crucial startingpoint for interior architects to be able to conceptualize anydesign. This should be considered by interaction designerswishing to collaborate with architects to create an interactivespace i.e. having the physical space ready before hand andscheduling the site visit at the very beginning. Another lessonwe have learned from this case study regards the visitors’ re-action and behaviour within the exhibit: not all people shouldbe expected to act in the same normal way. For instance,some visitors were overly cautious while gently touching thetouch-sensitive walls, while others were too intense and rough

(consumption of wine was involved!). A good interaction de-sign should therefore take such different kinds of users intoaccount.

INTERIORACTION: CASE STUDY 2

MethodThe second case study was in the School of Interior Designwhere 36 students (7 male and 29 female) in their final yearof three-year undergraduate program, participated in a fullday workshop in their own studio space, together with 3 HCIresearchers to facilitate the planned activities. Our researchgoal was to explore with them the potentials of OUI materialsin Interior Design as a means of designing interactive interiorspaces in different contexts and using different traditional fin-ishing materials such as Wood, Metal, Paint, Acrylic, Glass,Ceramics, etc. Participants were briefed as part of a modulethey were attending to develop an interior space for a theatreset for a production of ’Pan’s Labyrinth’, which we incorpo-rated into our workshop plan to investigate what interestinginteraction designs might be employed in such an unusualexciting interior.

Activity 1: Material ExplorationFor demonstrating interactive materials to interior design stu-dents who are accustomed to material samples from differentsuppliers, we prepared four sample models that would showtactile and flexible input and colour-change and shape-changeoutput each embedded in standard interior design materialsthat students may be more familiar with. For example, wedesigned a tactile palette to demonstrate to designers a va-riety of possible embedded capacitive-sensing in the formof wood sheet, wood engraving, fabric, leather, fibre, thread,paint, glass, acrylic and ceramic tile, using flexible conduc-tive materials underneath such as capacitive paints, fabricsand metal powders (see Figure 3). These ready made modelswe prepared helped in rapid learning, exploration of physicalinteraction and how such materials can be weaved into theirnormal interior designs.

Activity 2: IdeationThis group activity was designed in a way that is closer tohow interior designers work. Their methodology is mainlyabout how a design concept would be developed based on aseries of fixed constraints such as space or building typology,in addition to a set of parameters which allow for creativeexploration. As we wanted to explore designing different in-teractive spaces, we had a set of space contexts (educational,clinical, entertaining, retail, residential and an eatery). Wealso wanted to explore the possibilities of embedding a varietyof the normal interior finishing materials (wood, metal, paint,acrylic, glass and fabrics) with sensing and actuation capabili-ties. Data sensing may include Explicit hand manipulationsor air-gestures, Implicit motion or pressure, Bio-sensing, En-vironmental conditions, and Ambient sounds or lights, whileactuation may include change in physical shape, colour, skinor style, pattern or texture, and activating feedback such assound, light/shadow or motion. Consequently, we designedsix 3 by 3 jigsaw puzzles each containing four pieces (fromthe set of space contexts, finishing materials, data sensing and

Figure 3. Tactile Palette: a design tool created for Case Study 2 for intro-ducing capacitive-sensing embedded within different interior finishingmaterials (e.g. wood, fabrics, leather, glass, acrylic, ceramic).

Figure 4. Ideation Jigsaw: a design tool created for Case Study 2 forsupporting the development of design concepts to interactive interiors.

actuation effects) that are pre-defined as means of constrainingthe design with some boundaries, and four other pieces leftas variables they can decide (who are the users, what is theinteractive surface or object, when will it transform or triggerreaction, and why will it do that). With four constraints andfour variables, plus a main middle piece for the design concept,each group would have random nine pieces to help define theirinteractive interior idea (see Figure 4). This method resultedin a variety of ideas with different combinations of interactionattributes (users, inputs, outputs, context, usability and userexperience).

The result was impressive as using this technique proved to bea rapid ideation allowing creativity yet bounded to some con-straints. After a few minutes, each of the six groups developeda creative idea of an interactive interior design as following:

1- Shopping in Space: glowing footprints of retail customerswould appear on the pressure-sensitive wood floor near keyareas (entrance, stairs/lifts, changing rooms) visualizing theirflow as they step-in and wander in the shop, could direct themalso to area they want, then fading over time. Hangers could

also glow to direct customers to their size reacting to speech,all for creating a memorable experience in shopping.

2- 4D Cinema: hall that changes colours/ patterns of sound-proofing fabric covering walls, floors based on ambient sounds/light of movie scenes creating immersive story moods forenhancing people’s movie experience, or even seats that couldhave glowing seat numbers for late audience.

3- Campus Navigator: a wayfinding/ outdoors map naviga-tion system embedded across a university campus that storesand shows students and visitors different routes and paths onopacity-changing glass panels that are touch-sensitive to allowusers to point to where they want to go and it shows the pathon the interactive glass panel in front of the map backgroundboard offering information for lost visitors or students on opendays directing them to classes, refreshments, toilets, etc.

4- Sensory Assisted Living: texture-changing (uplifting) andcolour-changing (associated to emotions) residential object(water cube sculpture/ wall covering/ floor/ toy tunnel) re-sponding to bio-sensing and facial expressions of special needs(impaired/ blind/ child patients) when different moods detected(through heart rate, etc) by kinetic changing patterns and tex-tures to turn their bad days into good ones, motivate, encouragepositivity, optimism, inclusion, normality and playfulness.

5- Healthy Smoothies Bar: an eatery for children designedwith organic installations (trees) that moves branches, glowsLEDs and transforms colour when heated based on busy rateand day and night temperature for educating kids (healthynutrition awareness, sustainability) and an interesting featurethat when moves unleashes a story.

6- Butterfly Clinic: a clinical waiting area designed as a butter-fly garden for impatient patients where pressure-sensitive floorpanels (hanging bridge), walls or furniture could produce na-ture sound effects (birds, grass stepping, waterfall) and displaycalming nature sceneries, responding to user interactions suchas moving around and sitting on motion-sensitive swings andpassing underneath ceiling butterflies will move their wings,for relaxation and entertainment while waiting for their turnor stressful waiting for their relatives.

Activity 3: Design ChallengeDuring the design challenge, participants were split into fivegroups where they worked on theatre set designs that usesmart materials and interaction technology to achieve two maingoals: 1) immerse the audience within different scenes and2) create changing scenery through dynamic shape-changingSMA and colour-changing materials. See Figure 5.

Group1: (War Scene) Use conductive fabric integrated in asand bag to trigger different effects within the scene such asexplosions and light effects, creating an integrated way ofperforming. Using light and photochromic fabric to changeatmosphere of the scene from colourful to dark dingy sceneor descending mist on stage activating hydrochromic fabricchanging colour of the uniforms from crisp clean to mili-tary style gear which is important within that scene. Treesin the scene actuated using muscle wire instead of being astatic object. Use photochromic foot prints illuminating way-

Figure 5. Some sketches from Case Study 2 drawn by participants dur-ing the Design Challenge.

finding within the dark theatre. Back-seat panels to producespecial effects like smells and gust-air to simulate differentsenses.Group2: (Last Scene: Death) Use revealing conceptto create a scene of stages where the prominent circular backwindow that lets a lot of light in would react to her death byturning dark once she’s shot, colours would be dark, gloomyand dingy. The back wall will use SMA to crumble like rocksbreak away piece by piece then the wall would reveal anotherappearance for the next scene, then colours would convert toreveal the golden heaven kingdom. Ink that appears when sheopens the book with narrative aspect could be a giant book thatreveals the story using thermochromics when pages flip, andfootprints of different characters (fairies, etc) would appear tomake it magical.

Group3: (Start Scene) When she enters and steps on the grass,it will react to produce sound and spot light to shine on herand follow her as she walks in through the stage, and hiddenpressure-sensitive buttons activates the curtain rolling down.The scene where she draws a doorway with a chalk will revealthe perspective view through thermochromics. Similarly, whenshe reads the book, it reacts by revealing pictures of her futurewhen she touches it.

Group 4: (Labyrinth Pit Scene) when she enters and movesacross the stage it will look like she’s descending into the pitwithout actually moving down, using two interlocked circularslanted structures starts off both inline then create focus transi-tion effect between two spaces. SMA hanging from the ceilingcreating moving leaves of the forest, and changes the shadowsbehind it as it moves, as if the sunlight is coming through.Pressure-sensors on stage spark the noise of the forest at night.

Group 5: (Crawling under Tree Scene) getting the audienceto make assumptions on what will happen in advance. Createa tree that had dead leaves and flowers that would come tolife and open up using SMA to open and close thermochromicfabric flowers and leaves so that when it opens it starts slowlychanging colour as well. As she crawls on the sensitive floorwill glow beneath her in the dark stage, reflecting the frogscene, creating that sense of mystery. Mapping what is on thestage sets off another response in the cafe or box office, suchas glowing footprints of actress, frog, fairies, etc.

Data AnalysisOur gathered data consisted of 6 hours of audio data, recordedduring the workshop, to which we chose to perform selectiveaudio transcription of 1.5 hours that form the entire length ofgroup discussions and presenting back after each group activ-ity. The collected data is also supplemented by participants’sketches, schematic architectural drawings and textual writtendescriptions of their ideas and designs. Again, the notes of ourobservations of activities constituted a significant part of thegathered data.

This data was then subjected to a process of thematic analy-sis. Initial codes were generated and refined through iterativeanalysis to produce coherent themes that were then refined toestablish meaningful findings that contribute to the future re-search of interactive interior architecture and design. Thematicanalysis was chosen to reflect the complexity of the researchinitiative and the desire to retain the generative possibilities ofdata analysis to support future interactive interior designs. Aswe had five groups in the Design Challenge activity, we will bereferring to them as G1, G2, to G5 from hereafter. The resultof thematic analysis process was four main themes describedin detail below:

Findings

Special Effects: Light/Shadow, Sounds and SmellOne of the main themes that was clear throughout the datagathered was how designers focused on embedding specialeffects when asked to design for interactivity. Four out of thefive groups used sound and light as means of output feedback/interaction. Other effects such as smoke and smell (odour)were also used for a more immersive experience. Light wasused in the form of both spot-lights and illuminating objectsand floors as means of grabbing attention and/ or changingfocus from one area or action to another. Personal light wasalso created to follow the user by G3: "to shine on her andfollow her as she walks". Sound effects were often triggeredby implicit actions such as walking, stepping and approachingsomething or somewhere as means of immersive experience

engaging different senses. Controlling both sound and light to-gether was a clear theme across different designs with responseto motion and other implicit user input, and were considereda bold mix of actuation effects that instantly captures userattention. Shadow was also manipulated with light to create asense as per G4: "as if the sunlight is coming through with adappled shadow-lighting effect". Sound and light were alsoused separately as inputs to trigger other actions; G2:"onceshe’s shot, ..", not just an output interaction. In this sense, oneinteraction can open the way to another, allowing the interiorspace to conceal and reveal interactions, unfolding as the userdigs up embedded sensation/ interactivity and get exposed tohidden discoverability within the space.

Exploring Materiality through Tactile SensationsAll six groups were clearly enthusiastic about embedding sen-sation within the fabric of their interior design, using bothcapacitive materials and pressure sensors. Pressure-sensitivefloor tiles seamed popular as four groups designed them indifferent ways considering them a form of G3: "hidden but-tons" that can control/ activate some features. Apparently theyall wanted their interior to have motion detection as means ofimplicit input that is either deliberate or not, such as walking,approaching or entering somewhere; G3: "when she entersand steps on the grass", G4: "when she gets to the center",G3: "As she crawls on the sensitive floor". Others embeddedpressure-sensing as weaved into the fabrics of soft decorativeobjects; G1: "conductive fabric integrated in sand bags cantrigger explosions and light effects of the war when stood oncreating an integrated way of performing". Other designs ofembedded sensing included manipulating interior objects suchas: G3: "when she holds it", G3: "when she touches it". Aninteresting code was found as: G2: "would react to her deathby turning dark" meaning that death can be sensed and cantrigger the aesthetic death of the interior space of its owner fora mourning time.

Communicating Through Colour-ChangeRealizing their disparate properties, participants used a varietyof colour-changing materials in their designs to be triggeredat different conditions/inputs. Photochromic footprints (trig-gered by light in the dark) on the floor was repeatedly thoughtof as means of immersiveness leaving a glowing mark be-hind to be faded over time, even that of imaginary or distantcharacters/users who do not necessarily exist within the samespace; G5: "creating that sense of mystery", G2: "would ap-pear to be magical". Hydrochromic dyed fabric was usedto respond to mist, and thermochromic paints and dyes wereused on walls, fabrics and decorative artefacts. Two mainreasons were behind using colour-changing interaction in thesix designs: ‘revealing’ and ‘reversing’. ‘Revealing’ a hiddenstory, text, picture or view was a noticeable objective behindembedding colour-change in different interior elements andcomposed an essential part in designing discoverability withinthe space; G2: "ink that appears to give a narrative aspect tothe hanging book that reveals the story using thermochromicswhen pages flip", G3: "it will reveal the perspective viewthrough thermochromics", G3: "it reacts by revealing picturesof her future when she touches it". On the other hand, ‘re-versing’ was the aim of integrating colour-changing materials

to change the atmosphere, the feeling and appearance of thespace between three states normal/default, cheerful/colourful,and dark/gloomy on both the background (walls) and theforeground (objects) accounting on the psychological effectsand social-norm interpretations of different hues of colourschemes; G1: "to change the atmosphere of the scene fromcolourful to a dark dingy scene", G2: "once she’s shot, colourswould be dark, gloomy and dingy.. then colours would convertto reveal the golden heaven kingdom". Although not designed,but during the discussions, colour-changing materials wereconsidered appropriate to show the unseen such as mappingdistant unseen actions or conditions.

Shifting Focus Through Shape-ChangeSMA was mainly used to add dynamics to decorative objectsthat already exist in their designs and was explicitly justifiedby adding automated vibrance to the interior; G1: "trees inthe scene are actuated using muscle wire instead of beingstatic", G2: "The back wall will use SMA to crumble awaylike rocks break away piece by piece without anyone mov-ing anything". Kinetic actuation in general was also usedto allow a focus-shifting effect between two spaces, scenerytransition, revealing a hidden appearance. Another usage ofkinetic actuation was to create an illusion of spatial movement;G4: "it would look like descending into the pit without ac-tually moving down". SMA muscle wire was not just usedfor shape-change but to activate ambient subtle motions thatcould manipulate light shadows underneath; G4: "as it (SMA)moves it would change the shadows behind it, as if sunlight iscoming through with a dappled shadow/lighting effect". How-ever, SMA was mostly considered for an organic actuationeffect due to its linear lift and bend nature that resembles asubtle breath motion, so most groups embedded SMA withinartificial flowers and tree leaves for ambiance. When inte-grated within thermochromic fabric the combined effect ofshape-change with colour-change attributed to creating a liv-ing scenery; G5: "dead leaves and flowers would come tolife and open up using SMA to open and close thermochromicflowers and leaves so that when it opens it starts slowly chang-ing colour as well". This technique actually utilized the sameenergy source/ wiring that heats up the SMA to implicitly heatup the thermochromic fabric triggering colour-change as well,so a flower would blossom and brighten at the same time, as ifalive.

Critical ReflectionsAs much as they succeeded in designing with the conceptof ‘Revealing’, other findings included difficulty of design-ing for ‘Reflection, Speculation, Legibility (Indirectness) &Para-Engagement (Extra-involvement)’. For example, G5mentioned that during their brainstorm: "we thought gettingthe audience to make assumptions on what will happen nextin advance", then they tried to frame it in other ways "likemapping, so what is on the stage sets off another response inthe cafe or box office" and even "get the audience to be part ofthe play, so what they do reflects on the stage or what actorsperform can be projected around the audience, reflecting whathappens in the scene". These ‘para-engagement’ types of de-signs create a deeper meaning of involving the users within apublic space and takes engagement and interactivity to a level

Figure 6. Capturing visitors response with the interactive wall-paper atWorkshop 1 Exhibition: ‘Enchanted Architecture’.

that is beyond the traditional direct interaction that is obvious,discoverable and legible. However, they did not actually de-sign much of these insightful preliminary ideas. Perhaps dueto their complexity, deepness and unconventional nature.

While designers in Case 1 expressed more elaboration andinterest on the ‘structural’ scale of surfaces (walls, floors, ceil-ings) and furniture, designers in Case 2 had a perspective ofthe ‘ambient’ scale joined both ends of the holistic view of the‘space’ and the decorative details/ accessories that essentiallycontribute to their conceptual design identity and experience.This is mostly the result of the ‘theme’ at which each particu-lar case study was framed upon. Therefore, we recommendclear and careful consideration of the setting and subject ofcollaboration with interior architects and designers to yieldboth ‘functional’ and ‘experiential’ applications and domainsto enable the emerge of a new level of ‘interioractive’ designs.

DISCUSSIONFrom the observations in both workshops and our architects’and interior designers’ efforts to understand and work with thesmart materials, in addition to the visitors’ feedback duringthe exhibit (see Figure 6), we have developed three consid-erations for the design of interactive interior elements. Weexplicate these below, before turning to discuss how our workis contributing to the developing challenges of ‘Interioraction’.

Discoverability and LegibilityThe discoverability of an interactive interior space rangesfrom fully discoverable and understandable to being hidden.By discoverability we mean the property or an interface thatdescribes the extent to which a space is designed to express orhide its interactivity. That is; how quickly can people uncoverinteractive elements within a space and how an interior canunfold as users start interacting with it, either through implicitor explicit interactions. On the other hand, legibility defineshow easily users can make a connection between the cause andeffect i.e. input and output of interactions. Some spaces canbe deliberately designed in a way that appears disconnectedto urge users to systematically act within the space in order toreason what is happening. While we may not need or want tobe reasoning about the legibility of some spaces, others shouldbe designed in a way to reveal cause and effect relationshipsin dynamic environments.

Fully Discoverable Undiscoverable(Hidden Interaction)

Fully Legible Obvious Hiddenand Consistent and Playful

Not Legible Spatio-Temporal Mysterious(Hidden Logic) and Autonomous and Magical

Table 1. Combinations between ranges of discoverability and legibilityof an interactive interior space

In this sense, there is a clear relationship between discoverabil-ity (clarity of how to interact) and legibility (clarity of why itreacts). Table 1 shows how combining different ranges of dis-coverability and legibility can result in different space interac-tivity features and qualities. For example, a fully discoverable(flat) space that is fully legible (intuitive) with simple logic isunderstandable, obvious and consistent such as a regular lightswitch. An undiscoverable (unfolding) space that is also fullylegible will be more playful (as it unfolds hidden interactions)depending on its learning curve as it still holds a 1-to-1 legibleconstant reaction, such as the Engaging Space [7] and the His-tory Tablecloth [10]. On the contrary, a fully discoverable il-legible interactive space is one that reacts to complicated logic/scenarios that often use more variables in the interaction equa-tion such as number of users/tangibles, their position/ roleswithin the space as well as variable time, distance/proximityor a composition of more variables creating spatio-temporalresponses, sequential or accumulative interactions over time.This combination results in an autonomously-perceived spaceor object with no clear idea of why it is changing or behavingin a certain way, e.g. shape-changing bench [15]. Finally, aspace that doesn’t immediately show how to interact with it orwhy it is changing creates a mysterious atmosphere and can inthe right circumstances then be perceived as a magical objector an enchanted space.

Revelation and Coherent DynamicsHow the interior space can conceal hidden appearances, andhidden personality of its own and be able to slowly revealthem through user interaction is an interesting aspect of aninteractive interior. Although it is not necessarily always thecase, a space that entirely transforms its interior elementstogether playing one symphony creates an immersive experi-ence with its coherent dynamics. For example, colour-changeand/or texture-change of an interior’s wall paint, curtain, sofacushion, flower vase, rug and wall art can create an impres-sion of a whole new space or reveal a different feeling ormood. This can be achieved by wirelessly networking each ofthese soft decorative interfaces and playing with the optionsof appearance-changing in a coherent theme that can unfoldtogether showing the veiled mystery beneath, designing forboth the playfulness and aesthetics of interaction [25].

Spatio-Temporality and Spatio-AutonomyAn actual immersive experience is the one that takes interac-tion into 4-dimensions (rather than just 3D) by adding tem-porality as a key player in the user spatial interaction. Aninterior element can change its appearance as a result of in-teractions done over a week, capturing all the dynamics of

the space within that period of time rather than instantaneousreactions developed in previous work [20, 37, 4] that relied ona direct and prompt action-reaction approach. Once we designinteractive spaces that can change over time or possess someautonomy of their own, our environment can start communi-cating ‘self-expression’ through their unfolding interaction.

INTERIORACTION CHALLENGESThrough this exploratory study we aimed at tackling someof the key challenges of Interactive Architecture [22]. Pri-marily, ‘Radical Interdisciplinarity’ through engaging rele-vant design communities i.e. architects and interior design-ers. Our engagement -as interaction designers- with inte-rior architecture designers has taken a shape that is beyondthe traditional researcher-participant relationship. But wasrather a co-designer and co-author interrelationship wherewe all worked together in collaborative ideation, explorationand design group activities and discussions. This yielded aunique and productive experience that should specifically beapplied to research around interactive spaces which is inher-ently multi or interdisciplinary. Other challenges we triedto exploit included ‘Appropriation and Retrofitting’, wherewe succeeded in embedding interactivity into standard finish-ing materials and decorative objects with simple, affordableand available materials that are paintable, printable and pro-grammable. Whilst a delicate and tricky task, the new tech-niques we have introduced (e.g. the jigsaw, tactile palette, etc),helped simplify the ideas and forms of retrofitting such nor-mal materials and real-world objects in a way that keeps -andextends- the aesthetics of the interior space and does not jeop-ardize the social and emotional associations people have withdaily physical objects and surfaces. However, with regardsto ‘Scalability’, we faced numerous obstacles related to em-bedding them in room-sized scale, but found iterative designmethods and special material considerations to be helpful.

CONCLUSIONNot only did we i) engage architects and interior designers in‘interaction design’ for creating interactive spaces, but also,through this collaboration, we have ii) explored the designspace of interioraction, usages and limitations, iii) exploredthe potentials of affordable interactive materials in designingand prototyping interioractives, iv) developed new design tech-niques to do so, v) designed six different interactive spaceswith a holistic experience, and built an actual interactive in-terior space (with reactive walls, furniture and decorative ob-jects), vi) addressed some of the challenges identified for in-teractive architecture, and finally vii) tested and captured userresponses to interactive spaces of novice users (in the wild)who were visiting our ‘enchanted’ exhibition. As we intend tocontinue such engaging and inclusive studies, we encouragethe community to carry on similar collaborations and investi-gate new possibilities and potentials of ‘Interioraction’.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research was funded by Newcastle University SAgE DTAscholarship programme. We would like to thank all of ourparticipants, from Newcastle University and Northumbria Uni-versity, who generously contributed their time and skills sowillingly, and actively participated in this study.

REFERENCES1. Aedas Architects. 2012. Al Bahr Towers. Abu Dhabi,

UAE.

2. Nimish Biloria and Valentina Sumini. 2007. PerformativeBuilding Skin Systems: A Morphogenomic ApproachTowards Developing Real-Time Adaptive Building SkinSystems. International Journal of ArchitecturalComputing 07, 04 (2007). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.7.4.643

3. Stewart Brand. 1995. How buildings learn: Whathappens after they’re built. Penguin.

4. Leah Buechley, David Mellis, Hannah Perner-Wilson,Emily Lovell, and Bonifaz Kaufmann. 2010. Living Wall:Programmable Wallpaper for Interactive Spaces. InProceedings of the international conference onMultimedia. Firenze, Italy, 1401–1402. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1873951.1874226

5. Nicholas S Dalton, Emily Collins, and Paul Marshall.2015. Display Blindness? Looking Again at the Visibilityof Situated Displays using Eye Tracking. In CHI’15.ACM, Seoul, Republic of Korea. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702150

6. Nicholas S Dalton, Holger Schnadelbach, Mikael Wiberg,and Tasos Varoudis. 2016. Architecture and Interaction.Springer.

7. Dalziel & Pow. 2015. Engaging Space. In Exhibited atthe Retail Design Expo (RDE) in 2015. Exhibited at theRetail Design Expo (RDE) in 2015, London, UK.

8. DARLING QUARTER. 2016. Luminous | DarlingQuarter. (2016).http://www.darlingquarter.com/luminous/

9. Simon Dodsworth. 2009. The Fundamentals of InteriorDesign. 184 pages.https://books.google.co.za/books/about/The

10. William Gaver, John Bowers, Andy Boucher, Andy Law,Sarah Pennington, and Nicholas Villar. 2006. The HistoryTablecloth: Illuminating Domestic Activity. Dis 2006(2006). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142437

11. Sven Gehring, Elias Hartz, and Markus Löchtefeld. 2013.The Media Façade Toolkit: Prototyping and SimulatingInteraction with Media Façades. In UbiComp’13. Zurich,Switzerland. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2493471

12. Ernst Giselbrecht. 2010. Kiefer Technic Showroom.Styria, Austria.

13. Mark Goulthorpe. 2000. Aegis Hyposurface. Cambridge,Massachusetts, USA. http://www.hyposurface.org/

14. Jens Emil Grønbæk, Henrik Korsgaard, Marianne GravesPetersen, Morten Henriksen Birk, and Peter Gall Krogh.2017. Proxemic Transitions: Designing Shape-ChangingFurniture for Informal Meetings. In Proceedings of CHI

’17. Denver, CO, USA.

15. Erik Grönvall, Sofie Kinch, Marianne Graves Petersen,and Majken K. Rasmussen. 2014. Causing Commotionwith a Shape-Changing Bench. In Proceedings of CHI’14.Toronto, ON, Canada. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557360

16. Henning Larsen Architects. 2014. Kolding Building ofSDU. Universitetsparken Kolding, Denmark.

17. Chuck Hoberman. 2004. Hoberman’s Arch. Salt LakeCity, Utah, USA.

18. Yannick Joye. 2007. Architectural Lessons FromEnvironmental Psychology: The Case of BiophilicArchitecture. Review of General Psychology 11, 4 (2007),305–328. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.305

19. Stephen Kaplan. 1995. The Restorative Benefits ofNature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 15, 3 (1995), 169–182. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

20. Chin Koi Khoo and Flora D. Salim. 2013. Lumina: ASoft Kinetic Material for Morphing Architectural Skinsand Organic User Interfaces. In Proceedings ofUbiComp’13. Zurich, Switzerland, 53. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2493432.2494263

21. Nadia Mounajjed and Imran A Zualkernan. 2011. FromSimple Pleasure to Pleasurable Skin: An InteractiveArchitectural Screen. In DPPI ’11. Milano, IT. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2347504.2347537

22. Sara Nabil, Thomas Plötz, and David S Kirk. 2017.Interactive Architecture: Exploring and Unwrapping thePotentials of Organic User Interfaces. In Proc. of TEI’17.Yokohama, Japan, 89–100. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3024981

23. Jean Nouvel. 1987. Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris,France.

24. Kas Oosterhuis and Nimish Biloria. 2008. Interactionswith Proactive Architectural Spaces. Commun. ACM 51, 6(2008). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1349026.1349041

25. Marianne Graves Petersen. 2007. Squeeze: Designing forplayful experiences among co-located people in homes.In Proceedings of the ACM 2007 Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems. San Jose, CA, USA,2609–2614. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1241050

26. Philips Lighting. 2016. Philips Luminous Patterns.(2016). http://www.lighting.philips.com/main/systems/packaged-offerings/retail-and-hospitality/

luminous-patterns.html

27. Ingrid Maria Pohl and Lian Loke. 2012. Engaging theSense of Touch in Interactive Architecture. InProceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-HumanInteraction Conference on - OzCHI ’12. Melbourne, VIC,Australia, 493–496. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414611

28. Larissa Pschetz and Richard Banks. 2013. Long LivingChair. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factorsin Computing Systems. ACM, Paris, France, 13–14. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2479590

29. Carolina Ramirez-Figueroa, Martyn Dade-Robertson, andLuis Hernan. 2013. Adaptive Morphologies: Toward aMorphogenesis of Material Construction. In ACADIA2013 Adaptive Architecture. Cambridge, ON, Canada,21–23.

30. Axel Ritter. 2015. Smart Materials in Architecture,Interior Architecture and Design. Vol. 1. Birkhauser. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

31. Francesca Rogers and Daniele Gualeni Design Studio.2010. Light-Form. In Designed for ILIDE (Italian LightDesign) and Exhibited at the Milan Design Week in 2010.

32. Holger Schnadelbach, Ainojie Irune, David Kirk, KevinGlover, and Patrick Brundell. 2012. ExoBuilding:Physiologically Driven Adaptive Architecture. ACMTransactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 4(2012). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2395131.2395132

33. Odilo Schoch. 2006. My Building is my Display. InProceedings of the the 24th Conference on Education andResearch in Computer Aided Architectural Design inEurope: Communicating Space(s) (eCAADe’06). Volos,Greece, 610–616.

34. Nicolas Schöffer. 2005. Spatiodynamic, Luminodynamic& Chronodynamic. In Nicolas Schöffer’s Précurseur del’Art Cybernétique Exhibition. Paris, France.

35. Roel Vertegaal and Ivan Poupyrev. 2008. Organic UserInterfaces. Commun. ACM 51, 6 (2008), 26. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1349026.1349033

36. Richard Weston. 2003. Materials, Form and Architecture.Yale University Press.

37. Bin Yu, Nienke Bongers, Alissa van Asseldonk, Jun Hu,Mathias Funk, and Loe Feijs. 2016. LivingSurface:Biofeedback through Shape-changing Display. InProceedings of the TEI ’16. Eindhoven, Netherlands,168–175. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839469